Matter of Ettelt v. Ettelt

2021 NY Slip Op 03744, 145 N.Y.S.3d 504, 195 A.D.3d 1453
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 11, 2021
Docket545 CAF 20-00587
StatusPublished

This text of 2021 NY Slip Op 03744 (Matter of Ettelt v. Ettelt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Ettelt v. Ettelt, 2021 NY Slip Op 03744, 145 N.Y.S.3d 504, 195 A.D.3d 1453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

Matter of Ettelt v Ettelt (2021 NY Slip Op 03744)
Matter of Ettelt v Ettelt
2021 NY Slip Op 03744
Decided on June 11, 2021
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on June 11, 2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CURRAN, WINSLOW, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

545 CAF 20-00587

[*1]IN THE MATTER OF GREGORY D. ETTELT, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

v

BILLIE J. ETTELT, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.


PETER J. DIGIORGIO, JR., UTICA, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

KACIE M. CROUSE, UTICA, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.



Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Herkimer County (Anthony J. Garramone, J.H.O.), dated February 4, 2020 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition seeking to modify a prior order of custody and visitation.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, petitioner father appeals from an order that dismissed his petition seeking to modify a prior order of custody and visitation. Contrary to the father's contention, we conclude that Family Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his petition without conducting a hearing. "A hearing is not automatically required whenever a parent seeks modification of a custody [or visitation] order" and, here, the father failed to "make a sufficient evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances to require a hearing" (Matter of Di Fiore v Scott, 2 AD3d 1417, 1417-1418 [4th Dept 2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Williams v Reid, 187 AD3d 1593, 1594-1595 [4th Dept 2020]; Matter of Fowler v VanGee, 136 AD3d 1320, 1320 [4th Dept 2016]).

Entered: June 11, 2021

Mark W. Bennett

Clerk of the Court



Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

FOWLER, CHRISTOPHER P. v. VANGEE, VALERIE M.
136 A.D.3d 1320 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Williams v. Reid
2020 NY Slip Op 05393 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Di Fiore v. Scott
2 A.D.3d 1417 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2021 NY Slip Op 03744, 145 N.Y.S.3d 504, 195 A.D.3d 1453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-ettelt-v-ettelt-nyappdiv-2021.